4 ms·

Zero and if it did, in each "state" there would immediately be calls to split each of them vertically to reflect the legitimate schism of "blue"-coast/"red"-val

Zero and if it did, in each "state" there would immediately be calls to split each of them vertically to reflect the legitimate schism of "blue"-coast/"red"-valley. There is legitimate polarization in California - only the coastal areas are reliably "blue"...the three-state proposal does nothing to address that and only seeks to create more Democratic Senators. California-split-in-three would also create an eventuality most liberals would likely want to avoid - Texas as the eventual "superstate" acting as power broker.

cis2butene 8y ago
That split has been shifting in the last 20 years or so. When I first became aware of politics the central valley, high desert, inland (southern) valleys, and orange county were red. However, it feels like the rest of the country has been moving right, causing shifts in voting behavior. Some of that is also that califonia is a punching bag for right-wing speeches- similar to how alabama or arkansas is for left-wing speeches. Riverside/San Bernardino County are now more purple, with larger blue areas. Orange County is more blue on everything except immigration. There are certainly pockets of red left, including much of imperial county, but southern california is looking much more like the bay area in the late 80s than Reagan-era SoCal. Even central california has blue pockets with the growth of fresno. Fresno county actually went for clinton in 2016 despite solid down-ballot wins for incumbent R reps. If current trends continue as the state grows in pop (more middle-class people priced out of the major metro areas, growth of secondary metros in logistics/agra hubs like fresno, riverside, and sacramento, and a rise in train commuting) you'll see R areas shrinking to rural areas and areas without good transportation connections. That is a big "if", though, I admit.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> in each "state" there would immediately be calls to split each of them vertically to reflect the legitimate schism of "blue"-coast/"red"-valley. The new “California” in the proposal is purely coastal counties. What you suggest might, I suppose, be an issue in the new NorCal and SoCal (though Imperial County and some other inland counties in the south, and those on the I-80 corridor from Sacramento west, are pretty reliably blue, so the “coast”/“valley” split, aside from missing that not everything off the coast is valley, is quite oversimplistic.) > There is legitimate polarization in California - only the coastal areas are reliably "blue" Well, the densely populated parts of the coast, plus the I-80 corridor inland about as far as Sacramento, plus Imperial County. > the three-state proposal does nothing to address that and only seeks to create more Democratic Senators. The three states would be, basically, two blue one red, which would add one blue- and one red-leaning state, keeping the expected absolute difference between Democratic and Republican votes in the Senate the same (what matters for simple majority votes), but narrowing the ratio of Republican structural advantage (which matters for supermajority votes.) > California-split-in-three would also create an eventuality most liberals would likely want to avoid - Texas as the eventual "superstate" acting as power broker. Well, and New York. (CA, TX, and NY all play that role to a degree now.)
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Texas has taken the place of NY as the "second state". In terms of population and economic growth, Texas left NY behind a while ago. If California splits in three, Texas undoubtedly becomes the new superpower state.

cis2butene 8y ago

That split has been shifting in the last 20 years or so. When I first became aware of politics the central valley, high desert, inland (southern) valleys, and orange county were red. However, it feels like the rest of the country has been moving right, causing shifts in voting behavior. Some of that is also that califonia is a punching bag for right-wing speeches- similar to how alabama or arkansas is for left-wing speeches. Riverside/San Bernardino County are now more purple, with larger blue areas. Orange County is more blue on everything except immigration. There are certainly pockets of red left, including much of imperial county, but southern california is looking much more like the bay area in the late 80s than Reagan-era SoCal. Even central california has blue pockets with the growth of fresno. Fresno county actually went for clinton in 2016 despite solid down-ballot wins for incumbent R reps. If current trends continue as the state grows in pop (more middle-class people priced out of the major metro areas, growth of secondary metros in logistics/agra hubs like fresno, riverside, and sacramento, and a rise in train commuting) you'll see R areas shrinking to rural areas and areas without good transportation connections. That is a big "if", though, I admit.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> in each "state" there would immediately be calls to split each of them vertically to reflect the legitimate schism of "blue"-coast/"red"-valley. The new “California” in the proposal is purely coastal counties. What you suggest might, I suppose, be an issue in the new NorCal and SoCal (though Imperial County and some other inland counties in the south, and those on the I-80 corridor from Sacramento west, are pretty reliably blue, so the “coast”/“valley” split, aside from missing that not everything off the coast is valley, is quite oversimplistic.) > There is legitimate polarization in California - only the coastal areas are reliably "blue" Well, the densely populated parts of the coast, plus the I-80 corridor inland about as far as Sacramento, plus Imperial County. > the three-state proposal does nothing to address that and only seeks to create more Democratic Senators. The three states would be, basically, two blue one red, which would add one blue- and one red-leaning state, keeping the expected absolute difference between Democratic and Republican votes in the Senate the same (what matters for simple majority votes), but narrowing the ratio of Republican structural advantage (which matters for supermajority votes.) > California-split-in-three would also create an eventuality most liberals would likely want to avoid - Texas as the eventual "superstate" acting as power broker. Well, and New York. (CA, TX, and NY all play that role to a degree now.)

claydavisss 8y ago
Texas has taken the place of NY as the "second state". In terms of population and economic growth, Texas left NY behind a while ago. If California splits in three, Texas undoubtedly becomes the new superpower state.